On July 18, 2025, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, published the Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025 in the Official Gazette.

Background and Context: The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (the Act) was enacted with the objective of decriminalizing minor offenses across various central legislations, including the Patents Act, 1970, to promote ease of doing business and trust-based governance. The Act rationalizes penalties by replacing imprisonment and criminal sanctions with higher monetary fines and introduces a civil, administrative adjudication process for enforcement. In relation to patent law, the Act significantly amends several penal provisions, including:

• Section 120: Unauthorized claim of patent rights: The penalty is increased up to INR 10 lakh, with continuing penalties of INR 1,000 per day for ongoing contraventions. Previously, the penalty was up to INR 1 lakh fine, with imprisonment also possible.
• Section 121: Wrongful use of ‘Patent Office: This provision, which previously punished wrongful use of the term ‘Patent Office’ with imprisonment, fine, or both, has been omitted, effectively decriminalizing this offense.
• Section 122 – Failure to furnish required information (including Working Statement): Section 122(1) (Refusal or failure to supply information): The penalty is set at up to INR 1 lakh, with an additional penalty of INR 1,000 per day for continuous refusal or failure. Section 122(2) (Supplying false information): Previously punishable by imprisonment up to six months, fine, or both, this offense has been decriminalized and replaced with a monetary penalty not less than INR 25 lakh
• Section 123 – Unauthorized practice by non-registered patent agents: The penalty has been increased up to INR 5 lakh, with a continuing penalty of INR 1,000 per day for ongoing offenses. Previously, the fine was up to INR 1 lakh with imprisonment also possible.

The amendments also introduce new provisions, Sections 124A and 124B, establishing a civil adjudication and appeal mechanism where designated Adjudicating Officers hold inquiries and impose penalties, and aggrieved parties can appeal to an Appellate Authority.

To operationalize these changes, the Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025 propose inserting Rules 107A to 107L, outlining procedures for:

• Filing complaints and appeals via newly introduced electronic forms;
• Conducting inquiries electronically;
• Imposing and managing penalties.

Key Highlights of the Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025

1. Introduction of New Electronic Forms: To facilitate ease of filing and to digitize the adjudication process, the draft rules introduce two electronic forms:

• Form 32 (Rule 107C): This form is designed for submitting complaints to the Adjudicating Officer. It standardizes the complaint filing process and ensures that necessary information is captured electronically, enhancing transparency and record-keeping.
• Form 33 (Rule 107D): This form caters to appeals filed against the decisions/orders issued by the Adjudicating Officer. It streamlines the appeal process, allowing aggrieved parties to electronically submit their grievances to the Appellate Authority in a structured format.

2. Definition and Roles of Key Authorities: The draft rules delineate the powers and responsibilities of two principal authorities responsible for administering the penalty adjudication system:

• Adjudicating Officer (Rule 107B): Appointed by the Central Government, this officer is tasked with conducting inquiries into complaints, issuing notices to parties, evaluating evidence, and imposing penalties as per the provisions of the Patents Act. The officer’s role is central to the new civil adjudication mechanism.
• Appellate Authority (Rule 107J): This authority will hear appeals against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer. It will hold powers to confirm, modify, or annul these orders. The Appellate Authority acts as a check and balance to ensure fairness and rectify any potential errors or abuses of discretion in the adjudication process.

3. Electronic Proceedings (Rule 107F): Consistent with digital governance initiatives, the draft rules require all procedural activities, including inquiries, hearings, issuance of notices, submission of documents, and appeals to be conducted electronically. This ensures greater accessibility, faster communication, and reduced paperwork, while also allowing for better tracking and management of cases.
4. Penalty Mechanism: The Adjudicating Officer is empowered to impose monetary penalties under Sections 120 (Unauthorized claim of patent rights), 122 (Failure to furnish information), 123 (Unauthorized practice by non-registered agents), and 124 (Penalty for false representation) of the Patents Act. The rules stipulate that all collected penalties will be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India (Rule 107L), ensuring proper financial accountability and transparency.
5. Appeal Process with Timelines (Rule 107J): The draft rules allow any party aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Officer to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority within a prescribed timeframe of 30 days from the date of the order.

Key Issues and Concerns

While the Draft Rules reflect an important step toward administrative reform and decriminalization, they also raise certain legal and procedural concerns:

1. Lack of Clarity on Appointment and Qualifications of Adjudicating Officers: Rules 107A & 107B empower the Central Government to appoint Adjudicating Officers but do not specify the required legal qualifications, experience in intellectual property law or adjudication, or any mechanisms to ensure independence and accountability. This may lead to inconsistent or poorly informed decisions.

2. Unclear Timelines for Appeals and Final Disposal: Rule 107J allows appeals but leaves the timeline for disposal of such appeals to be "as may be notified." The absence of fixed timelines may result in delays and procedural uncertainty for appellants.

3. Ambiguity in Complaint Filing Process: Rule 107D permits any person to file a complaint electronically. However, it fails to outline: any evidentiary thresholds, preliminary screening process, or any safeguards against misuse, such as frivolous or vexatious filings. This could potentially burden the system and affect the reputation of patentees and practitioners.

4. No Criteria for Quantum of Penalty: Rule 107G gives Adjudicating Officers discretion to impose penalties under Sections 120, 122, and 123, yet provides no guidance on: factors influencing the amount of penalty, consideration of mitigating circumstances, or range or scale for each type of contravention. This opens the door to inconsistent or arbitrary decisions.

To sum up, the Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025, reflect a timely effort to bring India’s patent enforcement framework in line with the broader goals of administrative efficiency and decriminalization under the Jan Vishwas Act. However, the rules would benefit significantly from greater clarity on qualifications and processes, clearly defined procedural safeguards, and structured guidance for penalty assessment.

The DPIIT has invited objections or suggestions on the draft rules, which may be submitted to: The Secretary, DPIIT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001; email to: ipr-patents@gov.in. The deadline for submissions of the Comments is 30 days from the date of publication, i.e., by August 17, 2025.Stakeholders, including patent agents, IP counsel, businesses, and public interest groups are encouraged to review the draft carefully and submit comments, to help ensure the framework is legally robust and procedurally sound.